Cellular Sales of Missouri LLC v. NLRB, No. 15-1620 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCellular Sales petitions for review of the Board's determination that it violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 157, 158(a)(1). The court concluded that Cellular Sales did not violate section 8(a)(1) by requiring its employees to enter into an arbitration agreement that included a waiver of class or collective actions in all forums to resolve employment-related disputes. Therefore, the court granted the petition for review and declined to enforce the Board’s order with respect to this issue. Because the class-action waiver did not violate section 8(a)(1), Cellular Sales’s attempt to enforce the class-action waiver likewise did not violate section 8(a)(1). Therefore, the court granted the petition for review and declined to enforce the Board’s order with respect to this issue. The court also declined to enforce the Board’s remedies related to this issue. Because Cellular Sales’s unlawful arbitration agreement remained in effect and governed a former employee both as a current and as a former employee during the section 10(b) limitations period, his unfair labor practice charge was not time-barred. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part the petition for review, and denied in part and enforced in part the Board's order.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Melloy and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review of a Decision of the National Labor Relations Board. Cellular Sales did not violate section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by requiring its employees to enter into an arbitration agreement that included a waiver of class or collection actions in all forums to resolve employment-related disputes, and the court grants Cellular's petition for review of this issue; because the class-action waiver did not violate section 8(a)(1), Cellular's attempt to enforce the class-action waiver in an action brought by a former employee did not violate section 8(a)(1), and the petition for review is granted on this issue; the Board's finding that Cellular violated section 8(a)(1) because its employees would reasonably interpret the arbitration agreement to limit or preclude their rights to file unfair labor practice charges with the Board is reasonable and consistent with the NLRA; the former employee's unfair labor practice charge was not time barred as it had been filed while the unfair arbitration agreement was in force, and the fact that the charging party was no longer employed by Cellular did not preclude the action, as a former employee continues to be an employee within the meaning of the NLRA.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.